Islam and Its Record

Opinion | September 25, 2001 | ZULU

[AM2000]

(Islam's) basic tenets can be easity comprehended by the simplest intellect.

Indeed.

[Unam Sanctam]

It's from a "hadith" or traditional collection of sayings of the Prophet. The following article is of some interest: What Is Islam? -- Its name implies peace, but it preaches Holy War - so what kind of religion is it? by Paul Vallely 20 September 2001 It seems a long time now since the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama announced the End of History. It was not long after the Berlin Wall had fallen. The Cold War was over. Capitalism had triumphed. There were to be no more conflicts, just the playing out of humankind's increasing prosperity. Even then there were sceptics. Another American theorist, Samuel Huntington, pronounced that the great conflict of the 21st century would in fact be played out along the fault line of the tectonic plates on which Islamic and Western civilisation co-existed so uneasily. In the search for a new enemy after the collapse of Communism, the alien dispensation of Mohammedanism – to use a term which Muslims hate – appeared as promising a candidate as any. To non-Muslims, time has only seemed to give additional credence to the notion. First there was the Rushdie affair which raised the spectre of Islam as a threat to hard-won post-Enlightenment Western liberal values. Then the expressions of support by some British Muslims for Saddam Hussein during the Gulf war went further, creating the image of the UK's two million Muslims as potential subversives – a deadly time bomb ticking in our midst. And now Islamic fanatics have perpetrated the biggest terrorist atrocity of modern times. Extremists, terrorists, fanatics – the descriptions vary – but the constant always is the adjective "Islamic" which precedes them. So is there – non-Muslims wonder – something fundamental about Islam which makes it incompatible with Western values of democracy and freedom? Are Muslims inevitably more likely to be, in the vocabulary of cosmic good and evil so beloved of President Bush, "the bad guys"? Certainly one might think so from the questions which one now hears being asked about Islam by nervous observers of current events. Many are questions born of ignorance; but, for that very reason, they are worth answering. Here are six of the most common. Why does Islam seem so confrontational, aggressive and intolerant? The sword has always figured prominently in Islamic history. Christianity may have been inaugurated by a man who seemingly failed in his worldly agenda, but the seventh-century Arab who founded Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, was a man who vanquished his enemies on the battlefield. In the centuries which followed, military conquest was the means by which Islam spread rapidly through the Middle East to Africa, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, the Malay Peninsula, and China. The traditions and law of Islam were thus formed during an era of success. Programmed for victory, it has no theology for failure – or for being a minority. This undoubtedly heightens the sense of humiliation Muslims feel in an era of globalisation when Western power – cultural, economic and military – is increasingly unchallenged. Having said that, for almost half a millennium, under the Ottoman empire, the tone of Islam was one of civilised consolidation. It was also far more tolerant, of both Jews and Christians, than Christian Europe ever was of its minorities. In the 11th and 12th centuries, Muslim philosophy was the most sophisticated in the world. In Moorish Spain the governing mood was one of co-operation. In the centuries after, the attitude of Muslim conquerors to Hindus in India – moderated by the growth of Sufism – was far less narrow-minded than is often claimed. It is only with the growth of fundamentalism that the tone of intolerance has heightened, and many modern Muslims insist that the new practices of death-sentence fatwas and book-burning are unIslamic. Why is Islam so inflexible? Muslims believe that the Koran is the actual words of God, as dictated to the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel. As such, not only is its Arabic language thought to be unsurpassed in purity and beauty (to imitate the style of the Koran is a sacrilege) but it is also the infallible word of God. That means that there is no room for the kind of interpretation common in Christianity and Judaism which sees the Bible as the revelation of God's purpose through the experiences, minds and pens of men. The Koran cannot have been influenced by the circumstances under which it was revealed. It can contain no mistake. And it cannot be mitigated by any new discovery. What has been revealed by God is fixed and immutable. In the three centuries which followed the Prophet's death, attempts were allowed to interpret the Koran in the light of a changing world. The practice was known as ijtihad. But by the end of the ninth century Islam had been codified in legal manuals of The Shari'ah (The Way), a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities. The "gates of ijtihad" were then closed. Islam became a rigid and static system in which society could not shape or fashion the law, but instead became controlled by it. The word islam means submission. Some change has taken place. Several prominent Sunnite scholars, such as Ibn Taymiah (1236- 1328) and Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti (1445-1505), dared to reopen the gates. And Shi'ite Muslims – a minority branch who split from the Sunni majority in the seventh century and who predominate still in Iran and parts of Iraq – believe that ijtihad is still allowed. But in general, attempts by Sunni modernists toward the end of the 19th century to reopen ijtihad to reconcile Islam with what they found valuable in Western scientific traditions have not been widely pursued. How does Islam justify the notion of Holy War? There are five "Pillars of Islam" – practices which anchor the Muslim community. They are: the profession of faith ("There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet"); five daily congregational prayers, with bowing and prostration, preceded by ritual ablutions; zakat, an obligatory charitable tax to provide for the needy; fasting during the month of Ramadan; and to travel, at least once in their life, on the hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. But to these some Muslims add a sixth pillar: the jihad. There is much debate in Islam as to what this Holy War means. All agree it means "active struggle". Muhammad's followers in the early years took it to mean military advance, not to enforce the conversion of individuals – the Koran forbids compulsion in religion – but to control the collective affairs of societies to run them in accordance with the principles of Islam. After the Muslim empire was established, however, the doctrine of the jihad was modified. More spiritual interpretations took over. The struggle became an internal one of moral struggle against temptation. So where does the notion come from that suicide bombers go straight to heaven? There is nothing about this in the Koran. But Islam also has many books of hadith – sayings which were attributed by others to the Prophet. It is here that it is stated that martyrs, among the host of heaven, stand nearest the throne of God. Tradition also provides other details about a paradise of milk and honey with 72 beautiful virgins to every martyr. Yet many modern Muslims dismiss these notions as Arab hyperbole. Taken in context, they say, the practice is unIslamic. The Koran clearly states that "If anyone murders an [innocent] person... it will be as if he had murdered the whole of humanity." And Muhammad is recorded as saying that Muslim rules of engagement forbid attacks on non-combatants, women, children and men of religion; they outlaw attacks on the "means of subsistence" of those who "offer no resistance". No miscreant should be given succour or refuge by Muslims. Moreover there is a Koranic insistence that only God at Judgement Day should punish. And there are many fatwas (the word merely means Islamic legal judgment) which pronounce suicide to be illegitimate. How can a British Muslim say, as one did this week, that his religion is more important than his nationality? Muslims believe they are bound by their common faith into a single community – the umma – all of whom are "brothers unto each other". This explains the particular solidarity Islam creates, regardless of national boundaries. Nevertheless, most British Muslims insist that they can hold their religious and national loyalties together without any sense of conflict, though many feel that they get a rough deal as far as education, housing and job opportunities are concerned. Which creates additional tensions. How can Islam, with its Barbaric code of criminal punishment and its treatment of women, be reconciled to modern Western notions about human rights? The veil, the Taliban's refusal to allow women education or hospital treatment, the widespread practice of female circumcision – all mean that Islam is frequently accused of treating women as second-class citizens. Muslim apologists suggest that these are cultural practices not religious ones. But the Koran and hadith contain provisions which make a prima facie case for misogyny – ruling that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man, that her inheritance rights must be lesser, and that woman is to be seen as Satan when a man is sexually tempted. And the Koran lays down punishments regarded in the West as barbaric – cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning adulterers to death. Yet many British Muslims, including white women converts, insist that they have found embracing Islam to be a liberating experience which has brought them inner peace. It is a reconciliation which continues to mystify most non-Muslims. Even so it is difficult to spend any time looking into Islam, and meeting modern British Muslims, without concluding that often it is our questions which tell us more about the problems we face than do their answers, even where they fail entirely to convince. It is clear that much of our contemporary secular mindset about Islam is about as accurate as an assessment of Christianity were to be if we made it on the basis of the rhetoric of the Rev Ian Paisley or the actions of the IRA in its terrible heyday. The 1,000 Muslims who were reported to be among those who died in last week's attacks on New York would doubtless tell us so, if only they now could. The issue, of course, is not Islam but fundamentalism – a tendency which is as evident among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and even Confucians. Academics argue that it makes no sense to talk of Muslim fundamentalism – for if you don't believe that the Koran is literally the inspired word of God, you're not a Muslim. But fundamentalists in all religions share common characteristics beyond the fact that they interpret symbols literally. All are highly selective in "the fundamentals" they chose to return to, and in what part of modernity they accept. All take traditional texts and use them out of context. All embrace some form of Manicheanism – seeing themselves as part of a cosmic struggle between good and evil in which they have to find an opponent and demonise them. The danger in the days in which we non-Muslims now find ourselves is that we too will succumb to some of the same temptations. If so, it may be that there is indeed a time-bomb ticking away at the heart of our society. But it is ignorance of Islam that may prove to be the deadliest thing we have to fear.

[TheConservator]

Most Westerners really have no idea how incompatible Islam is with the basic assumptions on which Western, secular society rests.

Christianity focuses on belief. Islam focuses on conduct.

Western societies believe in freedom of speech, and freedom of religious conscience. Islam requires conformance to islamic law, the shari'a, which Muslims believe was worked out to its last detail by about the 10th century, and is no longer subject to change or question. Under this law, the killing of those who question orthodox doctrine, propose changes, or dissent is considered a highly moral and religious act.

Islam today is, in very many senses, where Christianity was about the year 1400.

In my view, President Bush should publicly declare that if Islamic terrorists use weapons of mass destruction (nukes, biological, chemical) of any kind in the US, our reluctant, albeit IMMEDIATE response would be to nuke Mecca, in a way that makes it permanently uninhabitable. No more pilgrimages there, as the Koran explicitly requires of every good Muslim at least once in a lifetime.

By announcing the "Bush Doctrine," the US would be threatening to undermine and destroy the Islamic belief system, in a way so fundamental that it is hard for Westerners to understand.

In my view, it is one of the very few threats the US can make that Islamic terrorists might take seriously.

[timestax]

Islam is sickening!!

[ZULU]

No.

Zoroastrianism is a religious faith going back at least as far as the start of the first millenium B.C., possibly even earlier.

Zoroastrianism preaches that there is only one God, a God of light who created the world. This God is referred to by the name of Ahura-Mazda. The world is the site of a cataclysmic conflcit between the powers of Good and Light, as represented by Ahura-Mazda, and an evil dark force called Ahriman. Some Zoroastrians believe Ahriman is a entity similar to Satan, other believe this evil force exists within all men.

This faith was preached by a prophet named Zoroaster in Greek or Zarathustra in Ancient Persian. It was the state religion of ancient Persia.

Zoroastrians believe in an immortal soul, an afterlife, a Hell, a Heaven, a judgement at death, a resurrection of the dead, a last judgement, a final great battle between Ahura Mazda and the souls of the good versus Ahriman and the souls of the evil dead, the appearance of a succession of saviors sent by God to save men, and the existence of angels.

If all this sounds familiar to you, it should. It is believed that many ideas found in both Judaism and Christianity had their source in Zoroastrianism, and the possible genesis of this was during the Babylonian captivity when the exiled Hebrews may had some exposure to these teachings.

Prior to the Babylonian captivity, Yahweh was essentially the personal tribal God of the Isrealites, later He became pictured as a creator God of all men.

It is believed by some that the Magi were Zoroastrian priests, looking for one of the Saviors promised by God to Zoroaster.

Zoroastrianism is a very tolerant faith. They believe that anyone who leads a meritorious life can be saved, regardless of their own personal religion. As a matter pf fact, most Zoroastrians are reluctant to convert non-Zoroastrians, because they believe that if one is born a Christian or Jew, etc, it is part of God's will that you live your life as such, but lead a good decent life.

Their enemies have accused them of being Fire-Worshippers because sacred fires are a very important part of their ritual and belief. However, Zoroastrians revere sacred fires as a representation of the one true God, somewhat like some Christians revere the cross.

There are numerous sites on the internet about Zorastrianism and Zoroastrians. The actual faith appears to be dying becasue of Islamic persecution in their Persian homeland, and because of a reluctance to convert non-believers. Zoroastrians who come from India are known as Parsis (spelling?) and Persian Zoroastrians and Indian Zoroastrians have some differences in their beliefs due to their cultural background and interpretations of the teachings of Zoroaster. The Indian Zoroastrians fled there centuries ago, again, to esacpe Islamic persecution in their homeland.

The attitude of Islam towards such a non-violent and meritorious faith gives one another reason to regard it with caution.

There is no connection between them and the Biblical tale of the Tower of Babel (probably a Babylonian Ziggurat - the ancient Babylonians, unlike the Zoroastrians, were pagans, but a rather tolerant bunch compared to Islam.)

What is a Messianic Zionist? Are you one of the "Jews for Jesus" group, or are you a Jewish Zionist awaiting the Messiach (Spelling?).

[RnMomof7]

On the other hand, Islam has some very appealing virtues. It is a very moral religion, in the sense that early Christianity was moral. It is an uncompromisingly monotheistic religion with no confusing and seemingly illogical concepts like one God with three personalities. Islam is free of the hierarchial conplexities of western Christianity and its basic tenets can be easlity comprehended by the simpliest intellect. It is a virile religion, in the truest sense of that term.

The outside of the cup is clean...

[muawiyah]

The first crusade was pretty much a case of the Caliph of Egypt inviting in French knights with heavy armor to toss the Seljuks out of the Levant.

Other crusades didn't accomplish much.

The "big cajuna" was the Reconquista. Here Christians spent several hundred years in a war which had as its purpose the removal of the Moslems from Spain.

In 1492 the Christians won!

The Arabs, who started the whole Islam "thing" haven't done very much since about the year 1000 since the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks pretty well conquered all of Arabia and North Africa.

Try to remember it this way - Geoffrey Bouillion fought a war on behalf of Arabs against Turks. He was given Jerusalem as the prize.

Another one to remember is that King San Cho Noe (a Cornishman, or Welshman) initiated the Reconquista in Carvajal by founding both Castile (Castle) and Leon (Lion). Through the centuries towns passed from Moslem hands to Christian and back again until Islam was exterminated. Later on Europeans conquered virtually every Moslem land and held them as colonies for 100 or more years.

No doubt the Caliph whose court was in Cairo should have held his peace, stifled his greed for the tourist revenues and just let the Seljuk insurgencies run its course. Then we wouldn't have all this nonsense about Conquering by the Sword and the Crusades to worry about.

Odds are the Arabs would be in worse shape than they are now, but so would the Turks - might even still hold Turkish Central Asia!

[jonatron]

If all this sounds familiar to you, it should. It is believed that many ideas found in both Judaism and Christianity had their source in Zoroastrianism, and the possible genesis of this was during the Babylonian captivity when the exiled Hebrews may had some exposure to these teachings.

Has it occured to you that it may be the other way around? See the Book of Daniel.

Prior to the Babylonian captivity, Yahweh was essentially the personal tribal God of the Isrealites, later He became pictured as a creator God of all men.

The book of Genesis, and the knowledge that Yahweh made everything in heaven and Earth, including mankind predated the Babylonian captivity BY FAR!

Obviously, this knowledge was among the Israelites in King David's time which was way before the captivity.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

You speak the truth, but no one is listening.

[imberedux]

 
Terrorism is a logical outcome of putting the Qur'an into practice. The Qur'an promotes permanent struggle against non-Muslims - or
at least until non-Muslims are converted to Islam, subjected to Islamic authority, or killed. Here  is a listing of relevant verses:  Islam
promises hell to non-Muslims 3:85, 4:56, 5:37, 5:72, 8:55, 
9:28,15:2,21:98-100,22:19-22,22:56-57,25:17-19,25:55,29:53-55,31:13,66:9,68:10-13,72:14- 15,
Islam warms against mixing with non-Muslims 2:21,3:28,3:118,5:51,5:144,9:7,9:28,58:23,60:4. Islam calls on Muslims to wage war
against non-Muslims  2:191, 2:193, 4:66, 4:84, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15-18, 8:39, 8:59-60,
8:65, 9:2-3, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:39, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 25:52, 37:22-23, 47:4-5, 48:29, 69:30-37. Islam encourages war against the
non-Muslims by glorifying it 2:216, 9:41, 49:15, or by promising lust in paradise to the Shaheeds who die in such a war
3:142,3:157-158,9:20--21. 
 
For those without a handy Koran, here are just a few examples:  O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers .... and let them
find harshness in you. [Koran, Repentance: 123] Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
[Koran, Repentance: 29] O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever
of you takes them for friends, they are evildoers. [Koran, Repentance: 20] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends....
whoso does that belongs not to God. [Koran, The House of Imram: 60] 
 
As hundreds of thousands of Iranian Bahais found out when Ayatollah Khomeni took power, any non Muslim who is not a Jew or a
Christian is to be immediately executed if they do not convert on the spot to Islam. Jews and Christians are allowed to keep their
religion as second class slaves with no civil rights and extra taxes not paid by Moslems. A non-Muslim’s testimony is not
acceptable or even allowed in court against Muslims or even against other non-Muslims. Non-Muslims do not have the right to
assume leading jobs in the state.  A Muslim’s life is spared even if he kills a Christian intentionally while a Muslim may only be
required to die if he kills another Muslim. The reason, as Muhammad said is that "only Muslims’ blood is regarded equal." Thus, no
Muslim should be killed for murdering a non-Muslim.  On the other hand, if a non-Muslim merely curses a Muslim, he must either be
sentenced to death or be converted to Islam! However, if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim, he will only pay a fine. Dr. Abdul Moumin
says, "All Muslims Jurists agree that a judge should be a Muslim and it is forbidden for a non-Muslim to be a judge according to the
Qur’anic verse, ‘There is no authority of the infidels over the Muslims not have the right to propagate their religion in Muslim lands. It
is apparent to everyone, therefore, that the position of a judge is prohibited for a non-Muslim or a woman because Muhammad said
plainly, "May God curse the people who appoint a woman to govern them" (Bukhari, Volume 6, p. 10, and Volume 9, p. 70). 
 
A well known saying of Muhammad is: "Do not meet Jews or Christians with greetings. If you ever meet them in the street, force
them to the narrowest part of it" (refer to Sahih of Muslim, "Interpretation of Nawawi", Vol. 5, p. 7; also Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: Zad
al-Ma’ad, Part 2, pp. 424, 425). This sentiment is also backed up in the Koran:  "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to
humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs
and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews
try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels
(2:97­98). Here are some of the claims that Islam makes against Christians. Some Christians will steal if entrusted with money
(3:75). Most Christians are wicked in their lifestyles (3:110; 5:59,66; 57:27). Christians have a great hatred for Muslims in their hearts
which they deceitfully hide (3:118,119). Christians rejoice when disaster befalls Muslims. They also act toward Muslims with guile
(3:120). Christians compete with one another to make illicit profits (5:62). Christian priests don't forbid their people's sins and instead
commit them themselves (5:63). Christian monks devour wealth wantonly and bar people's way to the truth (9:34). Christians display
pride, enmity and hatred in their factionalism among themselves (5:14; 30:32). 
 
No wonder there is dancing in the streets of Nablus, Palestine and everywhere in the Muslim world after the events of Tuesday!  The
whole history of Islam is summed up in their flag--the sword (conquest by force) and crescent (the deceit and stealth of a night
attack barely lit by a crescent moon).  If you have a "friend" who says he is a good Moslem, he's lying.  No good Moslem could be a
real friend unless he can convert you to Islam. If he can't convert you, then anything--lying, cheating and killing--is permissible to him
to bring you and yours under Islamic domination. The men who perpetrated this horrible crime are the real face of Islam.  Don't let the
Moslem clerics fool you.  As Abraham Lincoln said "A house divided against itself can not stand. I believe this government cannot
endure, permanently half slave and half free." Substitute "world" for "government".  Fascism, Communism are nothing to Islam which
in terms of deadly devotion of the masses is like Fascism AND like Communism in its universalism. War with Islam is inevitable
because it's totally incompatible with the Biblical basis of our Western Civilization   They must conquer us or be conquered by our
values and beliefs.  
 
Jesus said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."  The :Lord doesn't want "any to perish but everyone to come
to repentance". He commands us to "make disciples of all nations".  In dealing with the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, we must
follow the way of the Gospel and as best we can, love them into His Kingdom. Of course, the Bible allows us self-defense. But we
must defend ourselves in sorrow rather than in anger. Before we begin to defend ourselves, we should look to God and repent of our
national sins. We are the biggest purveyor of pornography and other disgusting "entertainment" in the world.  We have the highest
teen pregnancy rate in the world and nearly the highest abortion rate.  It's understandable how many Muslims can view America as
the "Great Satan", the cesspool that is polluting the world. We can not over come evil with evil, but only with hearts clean before the
Lord.  We must fast and pray and be ambassadors for Christ as we have never done in the past. Only then can we hope to defeat
the greatest anti-Christ force in the world today. 
 

[ZULU]

?? I don't understand your comment.

[ZULU]

Well, I guess you are a devout Jew, and I consider myself a devout Christian. We both take the Old Testament as the word of God.

However, there are sections of the Old Testament which indicate that the early Hebrews may have been polytheistic. This is not an idea I conjured up myself. Archaeologists, theologians and other biblical scholars have pointed out sections of the Old Testament which they use to support this.

Such as the "we created man in our image and likeness" phrase in Genesis. Or the independent Elohist and Yahwehist traditions. Or the frequent references to the Israelites worshipping other deities. Or the tradition in early Judaism about God having a female consort.

The Old Testament is full of passages that are very puzzling like the section about the sons of God who had relations with the daughters of man prior to Noah. What does this mean?

Also, other frequent references, like in Kings, about other books that the ancient Hebrews had.

What about the first commandment. Doesn't it say "I am the Lord thy God, though shalt have no STRANGE gods before me"? Doesn't this imply a belief in the existance of other Gods?

Biblical scholars have even been able to date various sections of the Old Testament and their conclusion is that the Book of Job, not Genesis is the oldest section of the Bible.

[ZULU]

The first crusade was pretty much a case of the Caliph of Egypt inviting in French knights with heavy armor to toss the Seljuks out of the Levant.

There may have been collaboration between the Caliph in Egypt and the Crusaders. Various Islamic entities and Christian entities formed alliances with one another throughout this period. However, as I recall it, the main impetus for the First Crusade was the persecution of Christians by the new rulers of Palestine - the Seljuk Turks.

"The "big cajuna" was the Reconquista. Here Christians spent several hundred years in a war which had as its purpose the removal of the Moslems from Spain."

This is true. However, remember that the Moslems had also conquered Sicily and Southern Italy from the Byzantines and they were first eliminated here by the Normans who set up the Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily) when they drove them out.

Also, remember that the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople in 1453, just a few years before the fall of Granada. They then went on to sweep through southeastern Europe and lay siege to Vienna.

[ZULU]

The first crusade was pretty much a case of the Caliph of Egypt inviting in French knights with heavy armor to toss the Seljuks out of the Levant.

There may have been collaboration between the Caliph in Egypt and the Crusaders. Various Islamic entities and Christian entities formed alliances with one another throughout this period. However, as I recall it, the main impetus for the First Crusade was the persecution of Christians by the new rulers of Palestine - the Seljuk Turks.

"The "big cajuna" was the Reconquista. Here Christians spent several hundred years in a war which had as its purpose the removal of the Moslems from Spain."

This is true. However, remember that the Moslems had also conquered Sicily and Southern Italy from the Byzantines and they were first eliminated here by the Normans who set up the Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily) when they drove them out.

Also, remember that the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople in 1453, just a few years before the fall of Granada. They then went on to sweep through southeastern Europe and lay siege to Vienna.

[timestax]

It is a virile religion

Virile religion??TRY VILE RELIGION!! No try Vile hate club WE HAVE no TOLERENCE FOR THOSE EVIL iSLAMIC ARAB TERRORISTS!